Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
~upreme QCourt
.ff[antla
THIRD DIVISION
DE ClSION
PERALTA,J.:
The facts, as stated by the Court of Appeals and the trial court, are as
follows:
P50,000.00 was prepared, and respondent Beatriz Miranda allegedly signed4
the same. The receipt was dated October 23, 1972.5 In the sketch, and
acknowledgment of the receipt of P50,000.00, marked as Exhibit "B,"6 there
is a notation "Documents for Agdao Property follows." This notation
referred to the property in Agdao, which was the subject of negotiation.
Petitioner prepared the document relative to the Agdao property.7
Petitioner further claimed that after 1972, she rented out portions of
the property in question. Eduardo Cecilio allegedly continued to be her
encargado as there were squatters on the property. In January 1996, the
tenants reported to her that there were two men who went to the property in
question. On the first week of February 1996, she (petitioner) met Atty.
Cabebe and Mr. Joe Ang. She informed them that she was the owner of the
property in question as she bought it in 1972. After sometime, she
(petitioner) learned that the occupants of the property in question were being
harassed and were told to vacate. She (petitioner) went to Manila and
confronted respondent Beatriz Miranda, and told her that she would file a
case in court.
On June 14, 1996, petitioner filed with the RTC of Davao City,
Branch 12 (trial court) an action for specific performance, annulment of sale
and certificate of title, damages, with preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order.8
Petitioner prayed that the Court render judgment nullifying the deed
of sale between respondents Beatriz Miranda and Ang involving the
property covered by TCT No. T-1594; declaring petitioner to be the owner
of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-1594 and ordering respondent
4
Exhibit “B-3,” id.
5
Exhibit “B-4,” id.
6
Id.
7
Exhibit “C,” id. at 17.
8
Docketed as Civil Case No. 24,442-96.
Decision -4- G.R. No. 162930
Beatriz Miranda to execute the corresponding deed of sale in her favor; and
ordering respondents, except the Registrar of Deeds, to pay her (petitioner)
damages, including litigation expenses and attorney's fees.
9
Exhibit "B," records, vol. I, p. 266.
10
Id. at 347-351; 354-372.
Decision -5- G.R. No. 162930
Mr. Arcadio Ramos, Chief Document Examiner and Chief,
Questioned Documents Division of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI), Manila, was presented to determine whether or not the signature of
respondent Beatriz Miranda appearing on the receipt dated October 23,
1972 was her genuine signature per the Order dated November 17, 1997.
FINDINGS:
Scientific comparative examination of the specimens submitted
under the stereoscopic microscope, with the aid of hand lens and
photographic enlargements (comparison chart), reveal significant
differences in handwriting characteristics existing between the questioned
and the sample signatures "Beatriz H. Miranda" to wit:
The questioned and the sample signatures "Beatriz H. Miranda" were NOT
WRITTEN by one and the same person.11
11
Exhibits “8-A” to “8-B;” “9-A” to “9-B,” records, vol. II, pp. 366-369.
Decision -6- G.R. No. 162930
he recommended to respondents Ang to proceed in purchasing the property
of Beatriz Miranda. Thus, respondents Ang purchased the property in
question, and they were issued TCT No. T-258316.12 The
squatters/occupants of the property in question, including Eduardo Cecilio,
the alleged encargado of petitioner, were given financial assistance13 and
they vacated the property in question.
The trial court dismissed petitioner's complaint on the ground that the
receipt dated October 23, 1972 which was the basis of petitioner's claim of
ownership over the subject property, was a worthless piece of paper,
because it was established by Mr. Arcadio Ramos, an NBI handwriting
expert, that the signature appearing on the receipt was not the signature of
12
Exhibits "2" and "2-A," id. at 484.
13
Exhibits "3" to "45," id. at 486-611.
14
CA rollo, p. 52.
15
Id. at 60.
Decision -7- G.R. No. 162930
respondent Beatriz Miranda, as vendor of the property, and the testimony of
Mr. Ramos was not controverted.
The trial court found that the Deed of Sale16 dated February 26, 1996,
executed by respondent Rose Marie Miranda-Guanio, as attorney-in-fact of
Beatriz Miranda, in favor of respondents Ang, involving the property in
question, was valid. All the requisites of a valid sale were present when the
deed was executed. The sale was registered in the Register of Deeds and a
new transfer certificate of title17 was issued in the name of respondents Ang.
The trial court declared that the certificate of title in the names of
respondents Ang was a conclusive evidence of ownership.
Petitioner alleged that the trial court erred in finding that the receipt
evidencing the sale of the subject property was a worthless piece of paper
16
Exhibit “G,” records, vol. I, p. 25.
17
Exhibit “2,” records, vol. II, p. 484.
Decision -8- G.R. No. 162930
which could not be made the basis of her claim of ownership over the land
in question; and that the trial court erred in dismissing the case.
18
Rollo, p. 49. (Emphasis in the original)
19
Citing Director of Lands v. Abache, 73 Phil. 606 (1941-1942).
Decision -9- G.R. No. 162930
Petitioner filed this petition raising these issues:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RULED
THAT THE RECEIPT DATED OCTOBER 23, 1972, EVIDENCING
THE SALE OF THE LAND BY RESPONDENT BEATRIZ ZAMORA
HIDALGO MIRANDA TO PETITIONER LAGRIMAS DE JESUS
ZAMORA, BEING A PRIVATE DOCUMENT IS NOT VALID AND
BINDING AND CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS OF SAID
PETITIONER'S CLAIM OVER THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT FOUND
THAT THE SIGNATURE OF RESPONDENT BEATRIZ ZAMORA
HIDALGO MIRANDA ON THE RECEIPT OR NOTE EVIDENCING
THE SALE OF THE LAND BY SAID RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER LAGRIMAS DE JESUS ZAMORA IS FORGED,
CONSIDERING THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH
FINDING AND, CONSIDERING FURTHER THAT UNDER THE
RULES SHE IS DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED THE
GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF SAID RECEIPT OR
NOTE FOR HER FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY DENY THEM
UNDER OATH IN HER ANSWER.
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT FOUND
THAT RESPONDENTS “ANGS” ARE PURCHASERS IN GOOD
FAITH AND FOR VALUE OF THE LAND IN DISPUTE EVEN IF
THEY HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PREVIOUS SALE OF
THE LAND BY RESPONDENT BEATRIZ HIDALGO MIRANDA TO
THE PETITIONER LAGRIMAS DE JESUS ZAMORA WHO WAS IN
POSSESSION THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH HER ENCARGADO
AND TENANTS.
IV
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT FOUND
PETITIONER LAGRIMAS DE JESUS ZAMORA GUILTY OF
LACHES, INSTEAD OF FINDING THAT SINCE THE ACTION OF
SAID PETITIONER, WHO WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND, IS
ACTUALLY ONE FOR QUIETING OF TITLE OF REAL PROPERTY,
AND RESPONDENT BEATRIZ ZAMORA HIDALGO MIRANDA,
RECOGNIZING THE EXISTENCE OF THE RIGHT OF SAID
PETITIONER TO THE EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF SALE, HAD
FROM TIME TO TIME PROMISED TO EXECUTE THE DEED OF
Decision - 10 - G.R. No. 162930
SALE, THE ACTION OF SAID PETITIONER DID NOT PRESCRIBE
NOR [WAS IT] BARRED BY LACHES.
V
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN DISMISSING THE
CASE INSTEAD OF (1) ANNULLING THE SALE BETWEEN
RESPONDENT BEATRIZ ZAMORA HIDALGO MIRANDA AND THE
RESPONDENTS “ANGS”; (2) DECLARING THE PETITIONER
LAGRIMAS DE JESUS ZAMORA TO BE THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY IN DISPUTE; (3) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
BEATRIZ ZAMORA HIDALGO MIRANDA TO EXECUTE THE
DEED OF SALE IN A PUBLIC INSTRUMENT IN FAVOR OF SAID
PETITIONER TO ENABLE THE LATTER TO REGISTER THE SALE;
AND (4) ORDERING ALL THE RESPONDENTS, EXCEPT THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS, TO PAY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S
FEES IN SUCH SUMS AS THE HONORABLE COURT MAY FIX.20
The Court notes that the issues raised by petitioner alleged grave
abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals, which is proper in a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, but not in the present petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The main issue in this case is whether or not the Court of Appeals
erred in affirming the decision of the trial court, dismissing the complaint for
specific performance, annulment of sale and certificate of title and damages.
20
Memorandum of Petitioner, rollo, pp. 157-158.
21
Records, vol. I, p. 16.
Decision - 11 - G.R. No. 162930
Rec'd the amount of fifty thousand (P50,000) pesos from Lagrimas
Zamora as payment for the property at Carmelite, Bajada, Davao City.
(signed)
Beatriz H. Miranda
Can the receipt dated October 23, 1972 evidencing sale of real
property, being a private document, be a basis of petitioner's claim over the
subject property?
Article 135822 of the Civil Code provides that acts and contracts
which have for their object the transmission of real rights over immovable
property or the sale of real property must appear in a public document. If the
law requires a document or other special form, the contracting parties may
compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has been
perfected.23
In Fule v. Court of Appeals,24 the Court held that Article 1358 of the
Civil Code, which requires the embodiment of certain contracts in a public
instrument, is only for convenience, and registration of the instrument only
adversely affects third parties. Formal requirements are, therefore, for the
benefit of third parties.25 Non-compliance therewith does not adversely
22
Art. 1358. The following must appear in a public document:
(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or
extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest
therein a governed by Articles 1403, No. 2, and 1405;
(2) The cession, repudiation or renunciation of hereditary rights or of those of the conjugal
partnership of gains;
(3) The power to administer property, or any other power which has for its object an act appearing
or which should appear in a public document, or should prejudice a third person;
(4) The cession of actions or rights proceeding from an act appearing in a public document.
All other contracts where the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos must appear in writing,
even a private one. But sales of goods, chattels or things in action are governed by Articles, 1403, No. 2
and 1405. (Emphasis supplied.)
23
Civil Code, Art. 1357. If the law requires a document or other special form, as in the acts and
contracts enumerated in the following article, the contracting parties may compel each other to observe that
form, once the contract has been perfected. This right may be exercised simultaneously with the action
upon the contract.
24
G.R. No. 112212, March 2, 1998, 286 SCRA 698.
25
Fule v. Court of Appeals, supra, at 713; 364.
Decision - 12 - G.R. No. 162930
affect the validity of the contract nor the contractual rights and obligations of
the parties thereunder.26
The receipt dated October 23, 1972 cannot prove ownership over the
subject property as respondent Beatriz Miranda's signature on the receipt, as
vendor, has been found to be forged by the NBI handwriting expert, the trial
court and the Court of Appeals. It is a settled rule that the factual findings of
the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are final and
conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal, except under any of the
following circumstances: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations,
surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based
on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6)
there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are
based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of
evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the
trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed
facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10)
26
Id.
Decision - 13 - G.R. No. 162930
the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and ( 11) such
findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. 27
In fine, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the decision of
the trial court dismissing the complaint.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
27
Larena v. Mapili, G.R. No. 146341, August 7, 2003,408 SCRA 484,488-489.
Decision - 14- G.R. No. 162930
WE CONCUR:
~
ROBERTO A. "ABAD JOSE CA~NDOZA
Associate Justice Ass~Jk~J:~~ce
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division. ·
J. VELASCO, JR.
Chai
CERTIFICATION